> > > > > > - you are setting IDE_NO_IRQ in ide_init_hwif_ports() which is
> > > > > > used in many places in generic IDE code - anybody wanting to
> > > > > > understand interactions with your code + generic code will have
> > > > > > serious problems (especially if knows _nothing_ about lpd7a40x)
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know what you mean. I grep for that constant and found it
> > > > > nowhere except for ide-io.c and in my code. It doesn't take much
> > > > > to find the references.
> > > >
> > > > I'm talking about ide_init_hwif_ports() function.
> > >
> > > Most of the ARM arch's use it. Perhaps all of them need a good once
> > > over.
> >
> > Since some time I have a patch killing <asm/arch-*/ide.h>. :)
>
> OK. That raises an interesting question. If a) you as the IDE
> maintainer want to make a policy change, and b) you have a concrete
> action to take, then how do you go about it so that the right thing
> (tm) happens?

I posted patch to linux-arm-kernel (rmk, I can't find it in l-a-k archives
and I also can't find any mail about it being rejected?) and linux-ide.
[ and to affected arch maintainers of course ]

> One tack would be to post to the ARM list stating that there is
> such-and-such, a new policy, and this requires a change to the
> way-things-work (tm). Then effect a patch that breaks the bad stuff
> so that the users of such bad stuff must cope.

It is stable kernel series so I paid 'stable kernel' price
and made sure that it shouldn't break anything.